3 States have legalized gay marriage by popular vote and Minnesota refuses to ban it from their State

[Sophie 1,280]

In Maryland, the measure passed 52 percent to 48 percent. In Maine, voters supported the proposal 53 percent to 47 percent, with 75 percent of precincts reporting. And in Washington, a gay marriage measure was approved 52 percent to 48 percent. Voters in Minnesota rejected a proposal that would have defined marriage solely as a heterosexual union. The constitutional amendment failed 48 percent to 52 percent.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-campaign-gaymarriage-idUKBRE8A60MG20121107

I am just wondering about your opinions on this huge step towards gay and lesbian rights in America.

I, personally, am ecstatic about it. I am very happy for all the gay couples who can now get married. I think it's absolutely wonderful and I look forward to the day when gay marriage is legal everywhere in America (and maybe possibly the whole world? It has to happen at some point.) I've always thought it was incredibly tragic that two people of the same gender who love each other as deeply and madly as straight couples can love each other are unable to share there love in arguably the most meaningful way - marriage. I always thought it was very sad that they are told that their love doesn't matter, because they are man-man or woman-woman and therefore not worthy of marriage. I also feel like this is going to be a positive influence for the rest of the world because America is debatably the most influential country on Earth - I think this will spark demands for legalizing gay marriage in other countries, as well as other States.

But I am most likely a minority on this website when it comes to being an avid supporter of gay rights. What are your thoughts and opinions on this?

[Neen 482]

I actually voted for it in Maryland! I was so flipping excited! I just think its right. Lets not look at this in a religious sense. But in a legal sense, it is only fair to grant them their basic rights.

[Guest thegirlwhoswaiting]

I agree with you neen!

[Sophie 1,280]

Lets not look at this in a religious sense. But in a legal sense, it is only fair to grant them their basic rights.

I agree with this completely. I mean I'm not at all religious so it doesn't matter, but I've met plenty of religious people who believe it is a matter of basic human rights.

[Jegsy Scarr 3,521]

Marriage has always been understood to be between a man and a woman, and there's a reason for that. Governments don't create marriage: they only give it legal recognition. Why would a government want to do so? Well, there are a few main aspects of marriage: love, commitment, a sexual relationship, and the decision to begin a family together. The government has absolutely no interest in recognising that two people love each other, want to spend the rest of their lives together, or want to have sex with each other.

The government is only interested in families. The legal institution of marriage was made primarily for the good of children. Every child has a mother and a father, and it's in the best interests of that child that as they grow up, they have both parents, who are committed to them and to each other. Marriage is supposed to protect and support children. When you get married, you're agreeing to enter into a relationship which (being a sexual relationship) has the possibility of children, and you agree to raise those children, provide for them, and take complete responsibility for them until they reach adulthood. With religious marriage, like in the Catholic Church, for example, that's also the main purpose of the relationship: to start a family together.

We know from experience that statically, children do best when raised by married parents. That's important, of course, because we want what's best for future generations. Therefore, civil marriage has always been a legal recognition that marriage is important to society, because of its role in raising future citizens in the best possible circumstances.

Honestly, I don't see why we should redefine what marriage is. By doing that, we're saying, "Marriage isn't about the needs of children, it's about the desires of adults". If we decide that marriage is not primarily about starting a family, then why does the government even need to have civil marriage? If it's only about love and feelings, you don't need to regulate that.

By redefining marriage, we're going to weaken its meaning and purpose, because we're basically saying that marriage has nothing to do with family or children. If we want to recognise only that two people love each other, then we already have civil partnerships, which give same-sex couples all the same legal rights as married couples, whilst at the same time distinguishes between two institutions which fulfil different purposes.

xxx

[Candyhall 414]

I cannot compartmentalize my beliefs. If something is against what I believe, then I cannot agree with it. Plain and simple.

I have many gay/lesbian friends and acquaintances, but when they ask, I am honest with them. I do not support gay marriage. Date whomever you want to, but don't call it marriage. It's a domestic partnership.

I take my convictions very seriously. I am by no means a "homophobe." That word has become all too popular in our society as of late. It is unfair to put labels on people simply because they disagree with your views.

[dodgedude 2,350]

I'm for a strong civil union but don't call it marriage. My Bible tells me otherwise therefore I cannot support based on principle. I find it ironic how some people slam Christians for not waiting "when it says so in their Bible" yet will demonize us when we oppose changing the definition of marriage, even though the Bible opposes homosexuality. Give gay couples every legal right under the eyes of the law that heterosexual couples have; I don't care. I actually support that. But when you ask me to call that marriage I simply can't do it. How could I? In my mind that would be me saying "God I know you would be against it but sorry it's just not fair so yeah im for it" You can say well then the difference is just semantics right? And I would say exactly. If its just semantics why make us go against our beliefs? When a civil union accomplishes the same thing and gives all of the rights. Apparently there can be no compromise.

[dodgedude 2,350]

And it should be a state by state issue. If a state votes to allow it then so be it. And gay marriages from that state should be recognized in every state, regardless of whether or not gay marriage is legal there. But when/if it comes to a vote in Indiana, I will vote against it. Yet like I say, we here should recognize other states rights to think and vote differently. That's how America is supposed to work anyway.

[Sally 2,368]

And it should be a state by state issue. If a state votes to allow it then so be it. And gay marriages from that state should be recognized in every state, regardless of whether or not gay marriage is legal there. But when/if it comes to a vote in Indiana, I will vote against it. Yet like I say, we here should recognize other states rights to think and vote differently. That's how America is supposed to work anyway.

I agree, babe! It should be a state by state issue, as well as making marijuana legal!

[Djams 706]

You know i don't really agree with it but is this the place to talk about it, I mean this site is about unity on one subject for the most part so why put something up that will obviously divide us?

[Sophie 1,280]

You know i don't really agree with it but is this the place to talk about it, I mean this site is about unity on one subject for the most part so why put something up that will obviously divide us?

It won't openly divide us. lol. We talk about a lot of issues on this forum that have many different opinions. Like whether pre-marital sex is a sin, whether a wife should work or be a stay-at-home mom for the kids, there have been discussions about religion and atheism, and even threads on rape and if that counts as losing your virginity, and would you marry a rape victim, etc. We talk about a lot more than just abstaining from sex. There have been arguments, but that is all. I remember arguing about some things, but I don't remember about what or with whom. We have different opinions, and we are open about that. I think we are all mature enough to deal with different opinions and values. Overall, we get along very well and we are here to support each other.

[Djams 706]

Ah okay well then i don't agree and who wouldn't marry a rape victim that'd be punishing them for nothing...

[Sophie 1,280]

Ah okay well then i don't agree and who wouldn't marry a rape victim that'd be punishing them for nothing...

I think everyone on this forum agreed about that. We agreed that if a virgin is raped, she is still a virgin because rape is not sex. So yeah, we have lots of controversial discussions.

[Djams 706]

IdkI just have a long track record of offending people cause even though i don't mean to they take what i say wrong.

[Invincible 8,026]

I agree with Altan's POV on the matter. Legalizing gay marriage would be a violation of the First Amendment because it would force religious institutions to officiate and recognize same sex or any other kind of marriage they don't agree with. People always cry about how religion should stay out of government, well it works both ways. Keep government out of religion. The fact is that civil unions already grant the same legal benefits as marriage does, which is all fine and good. If you want to argue equality under the law, there is no reason to deny same sex couples from having it. But the gay rights movement want their partnerships to be recognized as equal to marriage as a social and cultural institution. There have been cases where in states where gay marriage is legal, same sex couples have sued religious institutions for refusing to officiate their wedding and won. They are essentially saying, "You're not allowed to believe in what you believe and we're going to force you to bend your beliefs to accommodate us."

With that in mind, I personally don't think the government has any right to have any say in marriage, whether gay or traditional period. Like Altan said, if you allow a legal authority to dictate something that is social and religious based, any minority group that opposes the will of the people is oppressed. If the government can regulate it, they can also decide the terms in which you are allowed to have it. That is extremely dangerous. The only role government should play is simply honoring whatever legal contract two people decide to enter into. That's it. Let the churches decide whether they want to officiate gay marriages or not.

I take my convictions very seriously. I am by no means a "homophobe." That word has become all too popular in our society as of late. It is unfair to put labels on people simply because they disagree with your views.

That is my biggest problem with the gay rights movement. For all their rhetoric of tolerance and acceptance, they've done a pretty good job at demonizing anyone who disagrees with their beliefs. I respect that they are fighting for their rights, but to label anyone who opposes them as hateful is pretty hypocritical. Our culture seems to believe that in order to to love someone, you have to agree with them in every way. Hell, even loving couples disagree from time to time. Disagreeing with someone's lifestyle doesn't mean you hate them. To think otherwise is just as narrow minded and bigoted as those who oppose gay marriage out of hate for gays.

[AussieStig 1,151]

I don't even understand the whole thing about marriage being regulated by Government. Marriage was created by God for His followers, beside the point but why would anyone that was not religious want to come under the precepts and confines of marriage?

When I get married in under a month, it's not going to be the legal piece of paper that makes me married - it's soooo much more than that. In fact, I wouldn't even care if our marriage wasn't recognised legally - that's just not the important thing to me.

So yeah, that's me not taking a side at ALL. Haha.

[Djams 706]

I don't even understand the whole thing about marriage being regulated by Government. Marriage was created by God for His followers, beside the point but why would anyone that was not religious want to come under the precepts and confines of marriage?

When I get married in under a month, it's not going to be the legal piece of paper that makes me married - it's soooo much more than that. In fact, I wouldn't even care if our marriage wasn't recognised legally - that's just not the important thing to me.

So yeah, that's me not taking a side at ALL. Haha.

I see what you're saying but it does say in the bible you should be married under god and law in front of people.

[Mike 1,859]

I'm excited about it, but slightly annoyed that my gay brother is probably going to get married before I do despite having to wait on the federal government to change first.

[Keisha 177]

I personally don't agree with it because of my religion, but everyone doesn't have the same religious beliefs as I do, so I guess they can do whatever they want.

[AussieStig 1,151]

I see what you're saying but it does say in the bible you should be married under god and law in front of people.

Quote please.

[loyalhero90 297]

I don't agree with it being called a marriage. I think it should be called a union. While I understand that not everyone is religious or follow religious doctrines I still think the religions/institutions should be respected in the whole "marriage is between a man and woman" religious belief. Due to my religious beliefs I am against gay marriage/homosexuality in general (not afraid but I don't support) so I get a little peeved when it is called a gay marriage. I also have gay/lesbian friends but I make sure to stay clear of the subject because I don't want to ruin a friendship over personal beliefs. If your going to respect one side's choices by allowing a union then please respect the other and leave out the word marriage. Also I would think it would be very wrong to try to force a church to marry a homosexual couple...

[Gale 38]

I think the term "Marriage" should be for man-woman. And there must be an equivalent term for the Man-Man Woman-Woman

[Djams 706]

Quote please.

Sorry i guess it doesn't specifically say that i was just always taught that cause we learn that you have to abide by the law of the world as well I really researched this guess i should have before I said that but it does say that we should abide by the laws.

[Candyhall 414]

Legalizing gay marriage would be a violation of the First Amendment because it would force religious institutions to officiate and recognize same sex or any other kind of marriage they don't agree with. People always cry about how religion should stay out of government, well it works both ways. Keep government out of religion.......

That is my biggest problem with the gay rights movement. For all their rhetoric of tolerance and acceptance, they've done a pretty good job at demonizing anyone who disagrees with their beliefs. I respect that they are fighting for their rights, but to label anyone who opposes them as hateful is pretty hypocritical. Our culture seems to believe that in order to to love someone, you have to agree with them in every way. Hell, even loving couples disagree from time to time. Disagreeing with someone's lifestyle doesn't mean you hate them. To think otherwise is just as narrow minded and bigoted as those who oppose gay marriage out of hate for gays.

This is awesome Vince I especially love the part about keeping government out of religion!!!

[lime 65]

Well I'm excited about it. I think it's a major step forward for the gay community and for the country as a whole. I know that many religions forbid homosexual relations; however I don't see how that should forbid anyone who doesn't follow your religion to do as they please.

As for churches, I don't think they should be forced to do anything with regard to recognizing the union; however, I believe that gay couples should have full access to the same legal recognition/benegits as straight couples do.